• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

“Let the states decide.”

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Again, it boils down to personhood and when life begins. And you frankly do not know my history or my lief story.

As you've admitted before, it boils down to the legal status of a fetus in the United States, not some philosophical or religious opinion of "personhood" or "when life begins". We do not need to know your life story, just what your thoughts really are on the issue we are discussing. You can tell us what you choose to reveal, and we can draw conclusions from that.

@Pogo's point is reasonable. If the government is going to force women with unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies to give birth, then it has a moral responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of that child after birth. You tend to vote for Republicans, but the Republican Party is not known for its support of child welfare. Quite the opposite. They are known for supporting compulsory childbirth in pregnant women who would rather not give birth.
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As you've admitted before, it boils down to the legal status of a fetus in the United States, not some philosophical or religious opinion of "personhood" or "when life begins". We do not need to know your life story, just what your thoughts really are on the issue we are discussing. You can tell us what you choose to reveal, and we can draw conclusions from that.

@Pogo's point is reasonable. If the government is going to force women with unwanted or unhealthy pregnancies to give birth, then it has a moral responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of that child after birth. You tend to vote for Republicans, but the Republican Party is not known for its support of child welfare. Quite the opposite. They are know for supporting compulsory childbirth in pregnant women who would rather not give birth.
I do TEND to vote Republican. I am also very much in favor of childbirth vs. abortion and I support that, along with supporting women who choose that option. Without going into my life story or whatever, I have and do support those women.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I do TEND to vote Republican. I am also very much in favor of childbirth vs. abortion and I support that, along with supporting women who choose that option. Without going into my life story or whatever, I have and do support those women.

Yes, but that was not of interest here. What is of interest is how your compassion for fetuses seems to end when they become babies. You concern seems somewhat inconsistent. Or do you support the Democratic party on universal healthcare, free pre-k, and childhood support in general?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Sorry, I don't just automatically believe the mainstream media.
Is the National Institution of Health good enough for you?

Google Scholar article from University of Georgia:
Abstract:

Abstract​


From 1959 to 1980, abortion-related mortality declined by 97%, and maternal mortality fell by 86%. In this study, we question whether the legalization of abortion over 1969-1973 explains a portion of this maternal mortality decline. Our results suggest that legal abortion reduced non-white maternal mortality by 30-40%, with little impact on overall or white maternal mortality. We also find that early state-level legalizations were crucial, and explain more of the observed mortality decline than the Roe v. Wade decision itself. Overall, our findings suggest that legal abortion substantially improved maternal health for disadvantaged groups.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
If a person - disabled or not - needs your body to sustain their life - e.g. they need your kidney or bone marrow - I still think you should have the absolute right to say no.
See? We don't agree on the unique aspects of pregnancy.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
See? We don't agree on the unique aspects of pregnancy.
Since your position on the rights of a fetus is hypocritically unhinged, I would certainly hope so.

You argue that fetuses should be treated as "persons", but then argue that they should be given rights far, far beyond those of an actual person.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Is the National Institution of Health good enough for you?

Google Scholar article from University of Georgia:
Abstract:

Abstract​


From 1959 to 1980, abortion-related mortality declined by 97%, and maternal mortality fell by 86%. In this study, we question whether the legalization of abortion over 1969-1973 explains a portion of this maternal mortality decline. Our results suggest that legal abortion reduced non-white maternal mortality by 30-40%, with little impact on overall or white maternal mortality. We also find that early state-level legalizations were crucial, and explain more of the observed mortality decline than the Roe v. Wade decision itself. Overall, our findings suggest that legal abortion substantially improved maternal health for disadvantaged groups.​
I don't know. Even the article from U of GA skims the issue that WHITE MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES are significantly lower than many other maternal mortality rates.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Since your position on the rights of a fetus is hypocritically unhinged, I would certainly hope so.

You argue that fetuses should be treated as "persons", but then argue that they should be given rights far, far beyond those of an actual person.
Is this really what you've gotten out of this? I don't even know why I argue with you, excuse me, DEBATE with you.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Is the National Institution of Health good enough for you?

Google Scholar article from University of Georgia:
Abstract:

Abstract​


From 1959 to 1980, abortion-related mortality declined by 97%, and maternal mortality fell by 86%. In this study, we question whether the legalization of abortion over 1969-1973 explains a portion of this maternal mortality decline. Our results suggest that legal abortion reduced non-white maternal mortality by 30-40%, with little impact on overall or white maternal mortality. We also find that early state-level legalizations were crucial, and explain more of the observed mortality decline than the Roe v. Wade decision itself. Overall, our findings suggest that legal abortion substantially improved maternal health for disadvantaged groups.​

I don't know. Even the article from U of GA skims the issue that WHITE MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES are significantly lower than many other maternal mortality rates.

Huh? Those articles are about the significant impact of abortion restriction on maternal mortality of black women. White women experience far less impact. Where do you see that white maternal mortality rates are significantly lower than other maternal mortality rates? The articles suggest the opposite. That's not to say that white maternal mortality is at an acceptable level in the US, only that abortion restrictions have a disproportionate impact on racial demographics.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Huh? Those articles are about the significant impact of abortion restriction on maternal mortality of black women. White women experience far less impact. Where do you see that white maternal mortality rates are significantly lower than other maternal mortality rates? The articles suggest the opposite. That's not to say that white maternal mortality is at an acceptable level in the US, only that abortion restrictions have a disproportionate impact on racial demographics.
I don't see that white maternal rates are significantly lower than other rates, and that's one of the problems. It's easy to google or bing this information.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I don't see that white maternal rates are significantly lower than other rates, and that's one of the problems. It's easy to google or bing this information.
Be more specific. What maternal mortality rates are you talking about? And why is that a relevant point to make here? You have more real estate here than on Twitter or Facebook, so please say what you mean rather than just hinting at it.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Be more specific. What maternal mortality rates are you talking about? And why is that a relevant point to make here? You have more real estate here than on Twitter or Facebook, so please say what you mean rather than just hinting at it.
I'm not hinting at anything. I'm simply stating facts. You can look them up if you want, or not, doesn't matter to me.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I don't see that white maternal rates are significantly lower than other rates, and that's one of the problems. It's easy to google or bing this information.

44 for black vs 17.9 for white. (per 100k) in 2019. These are pre-Dobbs rates.
I noticed that the maternal morbidity rates for women over 40 is abysmal. :(

You can download the pdf here as it might be easier to see all the data:
maternal morality by race graph.png
 
Last edited:
Top